The lying hypocrisy of it is just too much for an honest person to bear.

Mr. Gore has, in effect, declared economic war on the middle-class American family through his global warming faux science. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the cap and trade legislation, which passed the House last year, will cost the average American family $890 per year. But the conservative Heritage Foundation immediately challenged this figure. Using a more inclusive analysis, Heritage raised the estimate to at least $1,870 per year.

Heritage also took the trouble – on behalf of American families – to take into account the larger picture, significant details completely ignored in the CBO’s accounting:

It is also worth noting that, of the 24 years analyzed by The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis (CDA), 2020 had the second lowest GDP loss. Furthermore, the CDA found that for all years the average GDP loss was $393 billion, or over double the 2020 hit. In 2035 (the last year analyzed by Heritage) the inflation adjusted GDP loss works out to $6,790 per family of four–and that is before they pay their $4,600 share of the carbon taxes. The negative economic impacts accumulate, and the national debt is no exception. The increase in family-of-four debt, solely because of Waxman-Markey, hits an astounding $114,915 by 2035.

The bottom line here is that Al Gore is nothing higher on the moral scale than a war profiteer or as Investors Business Daily has called him, a “green Ponzi scheme” scammer. When Gore provided his star-witness testimony in the House last year on cap and trade, Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) queried him on the millions he stands to make off the legislation. Gore responded that he was merely “putting my money where my mouth is.”

To which IBD scornfully added:

Perhaps, but at the same time he is advocating policies based on junk science that, while he enriches himself, will devastate the American economy, causing huge losses in jobs, economic growth and GDP.

The American consumer and taxpayer are on the wrong end of his green Ponzi scheme. Somewhere, Bernie Madoff is smiling.

Just to provide the hopelessly ignorant (or willfully blind) MSM with a bit of recap on Gore’s climate war profiteering, it might be useful to remind them of a few easily obtainable facts regarding our former VP, Prophet Al.

When Al Gore left the VP office, he reported a net worth somewhere between one and two million dollars. Currently his net worth is estimated in the hundreds of millions.

In 2004, Al Gore co-founded with former campaign manager, David Blood (also formerly with Goldman Sachs), an investment fund aimed at profiting from business and government initiatives to stop “global warming.” They affectionately call their venture: “Blood and Gore.” It’s real name is Generation Investment Management (GIM). GIM has its home base in London and lists a host of mega-corporations as investors, among them, Aflac, GE, Staples, SYSCO, UBS, Waters Corp. and Whole Foods. This is not the sort of venture capitalist scheme with which your ordinary American family could become a shareholder.

In 2006, Al Gore came out with his Oscar-chosen movie, “An Inconvenient Truth.” Due to the movie’s consequent hyping by an enthralled media, Mr. Gore’s “documentary” has grossed over $24 million in the U.S. and over $49 million worldwide, making it the fifth-highest-grossing documentary in the U.S. to date, (from 1982 to the present). Yet, in 2007, the U.K.’s High Court found that the film was both “biased” and “alarmist” and noted nine specific “scientific” claims, which were at best unfounded and at worst outright lies. To be shown in British schools, the High Court ruled, would require tedious instruction to students on the errors and bias contained in the film.

The British ruling was widely ignored by the MSM this side of the big pond, however, and the movie continues to be shown to unsuspecting students in government schools and universities nationwide – with no disclaimers whatsoever.

Interestingly, one of the film’s claims which was noted as unsubstantiated by Britain’s High Court was the recently debunked. Mr. Gore’s assertion that the disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro in East Africa was expressly attributable to global warming has been found unscientific and based on faulty research.

None of Mr. Gore’s newly demonstrated scientific errors should really come as any surprise, however (after all, the man flunked out of divinity school). As noted by the Washington Post in this 2000 article on Gore’s lackluster college transcripts, the media-heralded scientific genius — Prophet Al — spent his entire tenure at Harvard avoiding all courses in mathematics and logic. The two science courses he had to take, Natural Science in his sophomore and senior years, he managed to receive a D and a C+ respectively. Gore’s college science performance was easily predictable, however, as his high school transcripts showed that the only courses in which Mr. Gore scored A’s were in art and religious studies.

The MSM is so enthralled with Mr. Gore and his single-handed quest to save mankind from itself that they ignore every salient fact regarding not only the scientific sham, but every detail about the man himself, including his anything-but-sterling scientific background. Add to that shameful sycophancy their enabling of the man to bank multi-millions while he scams the public and the MSM becomes no less than an unindicted co-conspirator in Gore’s war on Western economies.

When Mr. Gore makes wild claims, which are later debunked by truly scientifically minded folks, the MSM is AWOL. When Mr. Gore blithely insisted recently on NBC’s Tonight Show that the “interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot …,” neither the host nor the media elite know enough about science to even question his authority. When Mr. Gore belittled critics on the cost to American families of his cap-and-trade Ponzi scheme to ex-cheerleader-turned- anchorwoman, perky Katie Couric, she was so ignorant that she did not even question his recitation of accepted dogma.

Poppycock peddlers are found in every generation, but Al Gore’s get-rich-off-unsuspecting citizens is definitely a cake-taker in this lot of scoundrels. And for the love of Pete, one would think that any self-respecting journalist would go after him with at least the zeal they show in examining Sarah Palin’s hand.

Moral compass? The MSM does not seem to own a single working one among their entire lot of overpaid, under-worked scalawags. In allowing Al Gore to continue his green Ponzi scheme unobstructed, they prove they are all birds of a feather and have lost all credibility.

Warming periods have happened before – but NOT due to man-made changes

Data: Professor Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.

Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.

The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

More…

Following the leak of the emails, Professor Jones has been accused of ‘scientific fraud’ for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics.

Discussing the interview, the BBC’s environmental analyst Roger Harrabin said he had spoken to colleagues of Professor Jones who had told him that his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and office tidying.

Mr Harrabin, who conducted the interview for the BBC’s website, said the professor had been collating tens of thousands of pieces of data from around the world to produce a coherent record of temperature change.

That material has been used to produce the ‘hockey stick graph’ which is relatively flat for centuries before rising steeply in recent decades.

According to Mr Harrabin, colleagues of Professor Jones said ‘his office is piled high with paper, fragments from over the years, tens of thousands of pieces of paper, and they suspect what happened was he took in the raw data to a central database and then let the pieces of paper go because he never realised that 20 years later he would be held to account over them’.

Asked by Mr Harrabin about these issues, Professor Jones admitted the lack of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted.

But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made.

Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: ‘There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be.

‘There’s a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.’

He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.

He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.

And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.

Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries.

But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world.

Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: ‘There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.

‘For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

‘Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.’

Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.

Professor Jones criticised those who complained he had not shared his data with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled ‘until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend’.

Mr Harrabin told Radio 4’s Today programme that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made.

But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones’s ‘excuses’ for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and ‘mates’.

He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates.

He added that the professor’s concessions over medieval warming were ‘significant’ because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.

Svensmark’s research downplays the significance to which atmospheric CO2 has affected recent global warming.

Cosmoclimatology theory of climate change

Svensmark detailed his theory of cosmoclimatology in a paper published in 2007.[4] The Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Institute “investigates the connection between solar activity and climatic changes on Earth”.[5][6] Its homepage lists several publications earlier works related to cosmoclimatology.[7][8]

“During the last 100 years cosmic rays became scarcer because unusually vigorous action by the Sun batted away many of them. Fewer cosmic rays meant fewer clouds—and a warmer world.[9]

The book has been criticised by Gavin Schmidt[10]. A documentary film on Svensmark’s theory, The Cloud Mystery, was produced by Lars Oxfeldt Mortensen[11] and premiered in January 2008 on Danish TV 2.

Experimental verification

Preliminary experimental verification has been conducted in the SKY Experiment at the Danish National Space Science Center. CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research in Geneva, is preparing comprehensive verification in the CLOUD Project.

SKY Experiment

Svensmark conducted proof of concept experiments in the SKY Experiment at the Danish National Space Institute.[12]

To investigate the role of cosmic rays in cloud formation low in the Earth’s atmosphere, the SKY experiment used natural muons (heavy electrons) that can penetrate even to the basement of the National Space Institute in Copenhagen. The hypothesis, verified by the experiment, is that electrons released in the air by the passing muons promote the formation of molecular clusters that are building blocks for cloud condensation nuclei.

CLOUD Project Experiments

Scientists are preparing detailed atmospheric physics experiments to test Svensmark’s thesis, building on the Danish findings. CERN started a multi-phase project in 2006, including rerunning the Danish experiment. CERN plans to use an accelerator rather than rely on natural cosmic rays. CERN’s multinational project will give scientists a permanent facility where they can study the effects of both cosmic rays and charged particles in the Earth’s atmosphere.[13] CERN’s project is named CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets).[14] CERN posted a 2008 progress report on the CLOUD project.[15]

Debate and controversy

Galactic Cosmic Rays vs Global Temperature

Mike Lockwood of the UK’sRutherford Appleton Laboratory and Claus Froehlich of the World Radiation Center in Switzerland published a paper in 2007 which concluded that the increase in mean global temperature observed since 1985 correlates so poorly with solar variability that no type of causal mechanism may be ascribed to it, although they accept that there is “considerable evidence” for solar influence on Earth’s pre-industrial climate and to some degree also for climate changes in the first half of the 20th century.[16]

Svensmark’s coauthor Calder responded to the study in an interview with LondonBookReview.com, where he put forth the counterclaim that global temperature has not risen since 1999.[17]

Later in 2007, Svensmark and Friis-Christensen brought out a Reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich which concludes that surface air temperature records used by Lockwood and Fröhlich apparently are a poor guide to Sun-driven physical processes, but tropospheric air temperature records do show an impressive negative correlation between cosmic-ray flux and air temperatures up to 2006 if a warming trend, oceanic oscillations and volcanism are removed from the temperature data. They also point out that Lockwood and Fröhlich present their data by using running means of around 10 years, which creates the illusion of a continued temperature rise, whereas all unsmoothed data point to a flattening of the temperature, coincident with the present maxing out of the magnetic activity of the Sun, and which the continued rapid increase in CO2 concentrations seemingly has been unable to overrule. This reply has so far not been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

An early (2003) rebuttal of Svensmark’s theory reanalyzed Svensmark’s data and suggested that it does not support a correlation between cosmic rays and global temperature changes; it also disputes some of the theoretical bases for the theory.[18]

Galactic Cosmic Rays vs Cloud Cover

In April 2008, Professor Terry Sloan of Lancaster University published a paper in the journal Environmental Research Letters titled “Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover”,[19] which found no significant link between cloud cover and cosmic ray intensity in the last 20 years. Svensmark responded by saying “Terry Sloan has simply failed to understand how cosmic rays work on clouds”.[20] Dr. Giles Harrison of Reading University, describes the work as important “as it provides an upper limit on the cosmic ray-cloud effect in global satellite cloud data”. Harrison studied the effect of cosmic rays in the UK.[21] He states: “Although the statistically significant non-linear cosmic ray effect is small, it will have a considerably larger aggregate effect on longer timescale (e.g. century) climate variations when day-to-day variability averages out”. Brian H. Brown (2008) of Sheffield University further found a statistically significant (p<0.05) short term 3% association between Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) and low level clouds over 22 years with a 15 hour delay. Long-term changes in cloud cover (> 3 months)and GCR gave correlations of p=0.06.[22]

Cows, not cars, to blame for most of Brazil’s greenhouse gases

When most people think of the cause of greenhouse gases, they see images of factories and cars belching carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

In Brazil, the blame is being put on cows and the ranchers who raise them.

According to a study by Brazilian university researchers published by the newspaper Folha de Sao Paulo, the cattle-farming sector accounted for one billion tones of Brazil’s greenhouse gases in 2005, or half of the country’s total.

The slash-and-burn deforestation of vast areas of the Amazon to make short-lived pastures is the worst contributor, followed by the methane released by cow burps and farts.

The figures could be still worse than that report suggests, though. Its data are based on immediate greenhouse gas releases — and not the gases derived from rotting vegetation.

So what do the researchers suggest could be done so Brazil can reach its target of carbon reductions?

Being scientists, they see technological answers, particularly by way of genetically altering Brazil’s bovines so more cows can be squeezed into a pasture, reducing the amount of land needed — and cutting back on the 300 kilos of carbon currently emitted to produce just one kilo of beef.

In this blog, reporters and editors for global news wire AFP blog about the news they report and the challenges they face covering events from Baghdad to Beijing, the White House to Darfur. Marc Burleigh is AFP Latin America correspondent, based in Sao Paolo.

Over at ICECAP.us Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo has posted an item on a “Russian Bombshell” highly relevant to the ClimateGate scandal. The Russian media first posted the story and now some Brits are loving it.

The long and the short of it is best summarized by the Telegraph’s James Dellingpole: “What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock.”

That is, we have yet further evidence that the data is being cooked to make the long-running claim of an increase in global temperatures, and now to diminish the apparent cooling of said temps. As the gang at EU referendum tout, “it is in Soviet Union that the CRU, NOAA, NASA show the greatest warming.”

Around the world temperature stations have been widely decommissioned in rural and higher elevations, and we see an over-emphasis on increasingly urbanized (and therefore warmer) stations in the curious selection process as to what temperatures should count, and how much. The latter point references the fact that the data is then adjusted, and we are also seeing an increase in adjusting urbanized (that is, artificially warm) temperature records not down, but upward.

Excerpted in pertinent part, Joe Writes:

On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. …The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

The reason this cherry-picking is relevant — as is the apparent similar gamesmanship being played with other countries examined in recent days including China and New Zealand — because our NOAA compiles the global dataset and the rest work from it. So when CRU claimed that it “lost” its raw data, what they’re saying is the claim to have lost which stations they chose from NOAA’s compilation, making it impossible for those who wish to check it to discern how they got the answer they did.

If it is what it appears to be, and my dozen years working with these people and the past few weeks peeking further inside thanks to ClimateGate tell me that it is, then this is root-cause corruption.

Meanwhile, they are scrambling madly to stitch up an agreement in Copenhagen politically committing the U.S. to the long-desired wealth-transfer. The question is which moves faster, the collapse of the increasingly likely scientific fraud, or the global governance set.

Thanx to wearechangechicago for their booksigning confrontation with AL WHORE I mean gore.. Climate Fraud insight, the falsehood of global warming and climate change as promoted by the establishment is so obvious. Expect more restrictive green laws and regulations regardless of all the fraud evidence. Please forgive the fast subtitles I had to do alotof trimming to not go over the 11 min mark. Also, If you dont get the beginning , it’s about how powerful our Sun truly is 1 second of output from the Sun could power mankind for 13 billion yrs! To see these power hungry elitists pushing their climate fraud is laughable like they have control over nature. The tiniest variation of the Sun’s output is going to effect our climate in many ways moreso than mankind can do in 100,000 yrs ﻿

posted at 2:21 pm on December 11, 2009 by Allahpundit

Consider this “progress.” For whatever reason, possibly the vogue generated by the Goracle’s Nobel win, a bunch of green commentary in this vein popped onto our radar in mid- to late 2007. First came a think tank urging Brits to go green by having fewer children, even though their population’s already below replacement rate; then came that notorious “abort your way to a healthier planet” op-ed that kicked up a fuss in the ’sphere; and finally a call for a tax on reproduction by an Aussie environmentalist, coincidentally on the very day that Gore delivered his Nobel speech. (A few months later, Ted Turner rounded off the meme by insisting that we might eventually resort to a tastier form of population control.)

Those ideas were all aimed at incentivizing childlessness, either through tax breaks or appeals to conscience, but ultimately left the choice of whether to have kids to the individual. Not this new one, though. It seems we’ve now reached the point of explicit, balls-out admiration for Chinese-style compulsory population control and all the social niceties it entails. And not for the first time lately, either. Remember this hyper-creepy Tom Friedman ode to the one-party ChiCom system in September?

It’s come to this:

Ironically, China, despite its dirty coal plants, is the world’s leader in terms of fashioning policy to combat environmental degradation, thanks to its one-child-only edict…

China has proven that birth restriction is smart policy. Its middle class grows, all its citizens have housing, health care, education and food, and the one out of five human beings who live there are not overpopulating the planet.

For those who balk at the notion that governments should control family sizes, just wait until the growing human population turns twice as much pastureland into desert as is now the case, or when the Amazon is gone, the elephants disappear for good and wars erupt over water, scarce resources and spatial needs.

China itself has already used this argument, in fact, to claim that it’s “doing its part” to fight global warming. Two points, then. First, does the author realize that, with a few exceptions (like the U.S.), it ain’t first-world countries that are driving the population boom? The birth rates in Europe and Japan are already helping to depopulate the planet; if she wants to make a dent in global crowding, talk to the third world. And second, what’s alarming about pieces like this isn’t that they’re close to being implemented politically but that the basic idea — fascism in the name of environmentalism — is respectable enough to warrant publication even in outlets like the Financial Post and the NYT. If you think the illuminati at Copenhagen are wagering an awful lot on the science being settled, imagine how heavy a bet idiots like this are willing to lay. Thank goodness there’s no one in power in America who’s ever entertained similar ideas.

Your reading here will not be complete until you see the punchline from Jim Geraghty. Exit question: Would compulsory population control also involve some sort of cap-and-trade system, with anomic urbanites like myself able to barter away our reproductive “quota” to couples who want more than one?

The hockey stick graph is a classic from years back, that has now been proven to be a fraud perpetrated by those pushing a liberal agenda, and using the debunked theory of man-made global warming to justify it. The graph was a centerpiece of Al Gore’s fear-mongering. The researchers that made it refused to disclose their data, even though the study was funded with taxpayer money. Now we know why. I wrote on the hoax before (The hockey stick hoax), and showed that the hockey stick graph is totally inconsistent with data gathered in Europe:The lead scientist was global warming alarmist Michael Mann, who should be stripped of any further academic duty by virtue of scientific fraud. In essence, man-made global warming is a hoax. It is not man-made, but it is Mann-made. From Planet Gore (via Climate Depot):

1: In 1998, a paper is published by Dr. Michael Mann, then at the University of Virginia, now a Penn State climatologist, and co-authors Bradley and Hughes. The paper is named: Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations. The paper becomes known as MBH98.

The conclusion of tree ring reconstruction of climate for the past 1,000 years is that we are now in the hottest period in modern history, ever.

…Steve McIntyre, a Canadian mathematician in Toronto, suspects tree rings aren’t telling a valid story with that giant uptick at the right side of the graph, implicating the 20th century as the “hottest period in 1000 years,” which alarmists latch onto as proof of AGW. The graph is dubbed the “Hockey Stick” and becomes famous worldwide. Al Gore uses it in his movie An Inconvenient Truth in the famous “elevator scene.”

2: Steve attempts to replicate Michael Mann’s tree ring work in the paper MBH98, but is stymied by lack of data archiving. He sends dozens of letters over the years trying to get access to data but access is denied. McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, of the University of Guelph publish a paper in 2004 criticizing the work. A new website is formed in 2004 called Real Climate, by the people who put together the tree ring data and they denounce the scientific criticism:

3: Years go by.McIntyre is still stymied trying to get access to the original source data so that he can replicate the Mann 1998 conclusion. In 2008 Mann publishes another paper in bolstering his tree ring claim due to all of the controversy surrounding it. A Mann co-author and source of tree ring data (Professor Keith Briffa of the Hadley UK Climate Research Unit) used one of the tree ring data series (Yamal in Russia) in a paper published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 2008, which has a strict data archiving policy. Thanks to that policy, Steve McIntyre fought and won access to that data just last week.

4: Having the Yamal data in complete form, McIntyre replicates it, and discovers that one of Mann’s co-authors, Briffa, had cherry picked 10 tree data sets out of a much larger set of trees sampled in Yamal.

5: When all of the tree ring data from Yamal is plotted, the famous hockey stick disappears. Not only does it disappear, but goes negative. The conclusion is inescapable. The tree ring data was hand-picked to get the desired result.

Here are the relevant graphs showing the fraud:Ouch! The only questions remaining now are 1) is Mann going to be thrown out for scientific fraud, possibly the worse offense one can make in academia; and 2) will the MSM notice and report on the hoax as much as they reported on it when the hockey stick graph was introduced? Chris Horner wonders:

So now the question is, if tree rings scream and their message is one that few want to hear, does their message get heard?

Steve McIntyre has the money quote:

I hardly know where to begin in terms of commentary on this difference.

FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. However, the ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas (“heat islands”), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas (“land use effects”) i.e. local heat retention due to urban sprawl, not global warming…and it is these, ‘false high’ ground readings which are then programmed into the disreputable climate models used by your favourite enviro groups such as Greenpeace, which live up to the GIGO acronym — Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Looking at it from the long term, the planet has been gradually recovering from the Little Ice Age which ended in 1850. Our temps are in fact right where they should be. From a short term perspective, satellite measurements (which are far more accurate than land-based stations) are now showing a gradual decrease in global temperatures, and it is currently well accepted that temperatures have been slowly falling for over a decade now and cold records are being set far more often than warm records.

In summary, there has been no catastrophic warming recorded from either method whatsoever.

MYTH 2: It’s never been warmer in the past.

FACT: We are in a relatively cool period and it used to be much warmer over countless periods in the past. Even just a few hundred years ago, the Vikings used to live in parts of Greenland without snow, and vineyards flourished in the North of London! There is nothing apocalyptic about warmer temperatures, in fact it’s quite the opposite. In the UK, every mild winter saves 20,000 cold-related deaths, and scaled up over northern Europe mild winters save hundreds of thousands of lives each year. ALSO, data from ice core samples shows that in the past, temperatures have risen by ten times the current rise, and fallen again, in the space of a human lifetime. Nothing is happening “faster than normal” with today’s weather/climate change/temperature variations, etc.

MYTH 3: The “hockey stick” graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature decrease for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.

FACT: The hockey stick graph seen in An Inconvenient Truth and elsewhere has been completely debunked and proven fraudulent. It has airbrushed out the significant changes in climate which have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the “average global temperature” has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare. And now the temperatures are dropping once again, in fact they’ve been dropping since 1998.

The “hockey stick”, a former poster boy of both the UN’s IPCC and Canada’s Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and is proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It has now been quietly removed from the IPCC reports and thoroughly discredited throughout the scientific world and is well regarded as one of the biggest scientific hoaxes of our time, yet you can still find it being used today by organizations such as the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, etc. The chart is a computer construct and a very faulty one at that. But what else would you expect, seeing as it was created only to help perpetrate the climate change lie.

Speaking of computer generated scams, let’s not forget the drowning polar bears in Gore’s movie and the fraudulent claim that the bears are disappearing. In fact they are actually thriving. Polar bear populations are 500% larger than they were 50 years ago. Shame on you, Al Gore, for playing on people’s emotions to drive support for your enormous $45 trillion carbon tax hoax.

MYTH 4: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.

FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is a measurable driver of global warming, let alone the tiny amount released by humankind. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming.

Effectively, the man-made global warming theorists have put effect before cause — this completely debunks the entire global warming theory and shows that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a futile King Canute exercise! Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth’s oceans expel more CO2 as a result.

MYTH 5: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.

FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, about 96.5% is water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being trace gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O. CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. And then the human portion of that 0.037% is incredibly small.

But isn’t CO2 the most important of the greenhouse gases? Nope. Not even close. Most of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor, which is about 100 times as abundant in the atmosphere as CO2 and thus has a much larger effect.

In summary, water vapour is by far the most important and overwhelming greenhouse gas. Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention these important facts.

FACT: The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate driver, when in fact CO2 does not drive climate, and they do not take into account the Sun, which has the most significant effect on climate. You cannot use the output of a model to verify or prove its initial assumption – that is circular reasoning and is illogical. Computer models can be made to roughly match the 20th century temperature rise by adjusting many input parameters and using strong positive feedbacks. They do not “prove” anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover. Again, models are in essence: GARBAGE IN = GARBAGE OUT. (Maybe they should also take note that when the Earth warms, so do other planets in our solar system. Now please explain how CO2 can cause that?!)

MYTH 7: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.

FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

Scientists draft reports for the IPCC, but the IPCC are bureaucrats appointed by governments, in fact many scientists who contribute to the reports disagree with the ’spin’ that the IPCC and media put on their findings. The latest report suggests that the next 100 years might see a temperature change of 6 Celsius yet a Lead Author for the IPCC (Dr John Christy UAH/NASA) has pointed out that the scenarios with the fastest warming rates were added to the report at a late stage, at the request of a few governments (to create urgency) — in other words the scientists were told what to do by politicians and many of them strongly disagree. This is not science. It’s political propaganda.

To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 has any effect on global warming or can cause “climate change”. However, there is plenty of scientific proof that the Earth has been cooling while CO2 has risen, and that increased CO2 is very beneficial to our planet.

MYTH 8: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a pollutant.

FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it. In the US, president Obama is also trying to classify CO2 as a “pollutant” for the same political reasons. It’s really quite terrifying and is a slap in the face to science.

FACT: The planet does not need saving from this mythical problem of CO2 emissions from cars, but taking this on anyway, removing every car from every road in every country overnight would NOT produce any change in the carbon dioxide level of the atmosphere, and in any case it is pointless trying to alter climate by changing carbon dioxide levels as the cause and effect is the other way round! — It is changes in the activity of the Sun that cause temperature changes on earth, with any temperature rise causing carbon dioxide to de-gas from the oceans.

MYTH 10: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.

FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur, and always do. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting. Weather records clearly show there has been a decrease in violent and extreme weather over the past century.

Extreme weather correlates with the cycle of solar activity, not carbon dioxide emissions or political elections. The recent heavy rainfall in winter and spring is a perfect example of this — it occurred at solar maximum at a time when solar maxima are very intense — this pattern may well repeat every 11 years until about 2045. Furthermore, the hottest and coldest days on record occurred more than 60 years ago (before industry) and the wackiest most extreme weather recorded over the last 100 years, including the strongest hurricanes, and devastating droughts/floods, all occurred in the 1940’s. And guess what? They will always happen, every year, with new records set daily. Normal.

Contrary to media hysteria claiming increasing storm severities, scientists have studied this issue and come to the opposite conclusion: extreme events are becoming LESS common. Atlantic hurricanes were much more numerous from 1950 to 1975 than from 1975 to present. Hailstorms in the US are 35% less common than they were fifty years ago. Extreme rainfall in the US at the end of the 20th century is comparable to what it was at the beginning of the 20th century. Also, there is much empirical evidence to suggest that when global warming does happen from time to time, more warmth generally leads to a more stable climate with less weather extremes. Once again, the greenies got it backwards.

FACT: As carbon dioxide emissions from cars and factories does not have any impact on climate, these taxes are ‘just another tax’ on enterprise and mobility, and have no real green credentials. None.

MYTH 12: Global warming must be real since governments are trying to cover it up and I see protests all the time!

FACT: It’s exactly the opposite. Governments everywhere are not only active supporters of the climate change lie, they are promoters of it and massively fund it. And they’ve done an absolutely brilliant job of it by easily convincing the world’s alarmists and Earth-conscientious citizens of an impending catastrophe, thereby utilizing the protesters and subsequent immense political pressure to push through the very policies they aspire to implement on all of us. Governments have learned the power of activism ever since the days of the revolution, and they’ve managed to use it to their advantage. Extremist environmentalists have been duped into becoming a tool for the very governments they believe they’re “fighting” against. A recent example of this was the declaration by Al Gore and James Hansen which encouraged activists to consider civil disobedience to stop the construction of new coal power plants.

In defense of many environmentalists and “cause-jumpers”, quite often they simply do not know any better but are actually well intentioned.

MYTH 13: Receding glaciers, the calving of ice shelves, and the shrinking of snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro are proof of global warming.

FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier’s health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature. What you see on your television newscasts are images of the annual summer melt off, which happens every single year and is nothing to worry about.

Global warming is not melting Mt. Kilimanjaro’s alpine glacier. Temperatures at Mt. Kilimanjaro have been slightly cooling since at least the middle of the twentieth century, and those temperatures virtually never rise above freezing. Scientists have long known that deforestation at the base of the mountain is causing the mountaintop glacier to shrink, by reducing the moisture and resultant precipitation in mountain updrafts.

MYTH 14: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.

FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be gotten somewhat warmer last century, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. And now the western Arctic is cooling again. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica.

Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.

MYTH 15: There are only a tiny handful of maverick scientists who dispute that man-made global warming theory is true.

FACT: There are literally tens of thousands of signatures from scientists worldwide on many petitions, ranging from the Oregon Petition Project, the Manhattan Declaration, all the way to the Leipzig Declaration which all state that there is no evidence for the man-made global warming theory nor is there any impact from mankind’s activities on climate. Many scientists are now dissenting against Al Gore and the IPCC and strongly believe that the Kyoto agreement is a total waste of time, expensive, dangerous and one of the biggest political scams ever perpetrated on the public … as H L Mencken said “The fundamental aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary” … the desire to save the world usually fronts a desire to rule it. Of the scientists who support the climate change theory, many are on payrolls of government agencies and others are simply securing their funding. The consensus is clear: Man-made climate change is a hoax.

THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT

Over 95 percent of the Greenhouse Effect is the result of atmospheric water vapor in Earth’s atmosphere. But because water droplets held in suspension (clouds) make almost as good a reflector as they do a thermal insulator, there is little rise in daytime temperatures due to the Greenhouse Effect.

Any greenhouse warming, if it does occur, is limited to primarily increasing nighttime temperatures, which provides beneficial moderation of nighttime low temperatures, but no increase in daytime high temperatures.

Did you know…

Although the biggest source of greenhouse gas is our oceans, the world’s natural wetlands also produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined. Furthermore, Animals and volcanoes produce so much CO2 that it completely dwarfs mankinds insignificantly tiny emissions.

To summarize what we have learned so far:

Climate changes are not driven by CO2.

Air pollution has nothing to do with CO2.

Human-produced CO2 is a miniscule fraction of a percentage of greenhouse gases.

96.5% of all greenhouse gases emit from the oceans, naturally.

The small amount of CO2 produced by humans is wholly beneficial to the planet.

Without CO2, vegetation dies, herbivores die, you die.

CO2 levels used to be much higher many times in the past.

Higher temperatures from the sun result in CO2 levels rising long afterwards.

Rising CO2 is an effect of global warming, not a cause.

Global warming and cooling is a purely natural phenomenon.

The higher the CO2 levels in the atmosphere, the greener our planet becomes.

Forests and plant life growth has increased by approx 40% over the last 50 years, thanks to CO2.

Increasing CO2 yields larger food crops. This is beneficial to a growing population.

The Earth is not currently warming, it is in fact cooling.

Temperatures in the past have often been much warmer than today.

Even if it were to happen, a warmer Earth is far better than a colder one, for all life.

Climate changes happen all the time, and have occurred much faster than anything in modern times.

There has been no increase in extreme weather. In fact, records show the exact opposite.

So don’t panic. You’re NOT at fault!

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S. Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

Former President Clinton, Al Gore, Obama and others have often cited a letter signed by 2600 scientists that global warming will have catastrophic effects on humanity. Thanks to Citizens for a Sound Economy, we know now that fewer than 10 percent of these “scientists” know anything about climate. Among the signers: a plastic surgeon, two landscape architects, a hotel administrator, a gynecologist, seven sociologists, a linguist, and a practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine. We also now know that many of the few actual scientists on that panel are not asked whether they agree with the UN’s asessments, and many of them vehemently disagree and have thus asked to have their names removed from that fraudulent list. Global Warming Treaty is All Pain, No Gain — Malcom Wallop

With the release of Al Gore’s propaganda movie An Inconvenient Truth and with the help of the media the public has been driven into a mass hysteria based not on science but lies. The movie has been completely debunked and the junk science used by extremists is exactly that: junk.

You will learn that there is no empirical evidence that man-made CO2 is a cause of temperature increases. It is, in fact, an after effect of temperature increases. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant, pollution has nothing to do with global warming, politicians who support such absurd notions are a fraud, there is no “consensus” on global warming, the Earth has been far warmer in the past than it is today, polar bears are not endangered or dying, they are thriving, droughts and hurricanes are not caused or made worse by global warming, extreme weather events are decreasing, and there is extensive evidence of the factual natural causes of global warming when it really happens from time to time, pointing squarely at increased solar activity and orbital variations.

Those who claim that skeptics are in bed with the oil companies or receive funding from questionable sources need to give their heads a shake and look at the facts. Funding and grants to PROMOTE the climate change myth are astronomical, while money for the skeptics is pocket change:

Debunkers of the global warming theory have received approx = $21M (Million).Supporters of the global warming theory have received approx = $79B (BILLION!)

Many people want a piece of that $79 billion pie, and the figure will only get higher so long as these groups can continue to convince the populous that the end is near unless we all start paying to emit that evil CO2! Don’t you find it odd that nearly nobody ever accuses the giant Enviro groups of being in bed with the large Green Industry? Or that Al Gore has boatloads of his own cash on the line in these companies? Every environmental, political, and research group knows full well that in order to receive funding and grants they need to create urgency and panic. Money then flows in like a river, regardless of actual science. It’s a sad fact.
It is better to trust scientists than politicans. Do not let fear ruin your day. Learn the Facts.

There are several motives for the media and politicians to lie to you about global warming, aside from money and control.

~Foreign countries are lying to us (by means of the IPCC) because they wish to throw a monkey wrench into the inner workings of western economies, which are the strongest in the world. If our economy slows down, the economic standing of other countries improves because we will no longer dominate the markets.

~Development and industrialization of third world countries will be stamped out, along with hundreds of millions of lives, all under the guise of “saving the planet from climate change”. It’s absolutely sickening. So, who’s really on the “immoral” side? Us or the alarmists?

~Wanna talk about new taxes and restricted freedoms? Try carbon taxes on everything and strict regulations for everyone….all coming soon by convincing you that CO2 & greenhouse gases are somehow evil and you must pay to emit them. Too bad they can’t tax the oceans since they are the cause of 96.5% of all greenhouse emissions, naturally, eh! Also too bad they can’t go back in time and tax the dinosaurs since CO2 levels were MUCH higher back then and it must have been their fault.

I HAVE been asked several times ‘why am I so sceptical of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis’? There are many reasons, some of which I have documented in previous articles at this weblog, but these have relied on sometimes complex calculations which I admit can be difficult to appreciate. So I would like to outline here a few of my reasons based only on simple consistency with the AGW proponents’ own data.

1. The AGW movement claims there has been a global temperature rise of 0.5C over the last 60 years and that this is due to increasing CO2. Both AGW proponents and sceptics accept that the relationship between energy retained and CO2 concentration is logarithmic (a constant increase in retained energy for each doubling of CO2). The AGW movement data also shows that since 1900 CO2 has risen by very close to half a doubling over this 60 year period.

IPCC have claimed in their 4th assessment report (summary for policy makers), that the most likely temperature rise by 2070, when CO2 will have risen by a further half doubling to twice the level in 1900, is a further 3C rise (page 12). Why would the first half doubling give 0.5C rise while the second half doubling gives 3C or 6 times as much rise?

2. One claim I have heard is that it takes the climate a long time to respond to the change in CO2 concentration and we have not yet seen the entire rise from the first half doubling. The same IPCC 4th assessment report (page 12, 13 and 14) indicates that if CO2 were stabilised at the current level, the temperature would rise by a further 0.2C over 2 decades stabilising at 0.7C above the 1900 level.

If the current temperature rise is not yet at the equilibrium level then for the business as usual scenario the temperature rise by 2070 will also not be at the equilibrium level. Yet the IPCC data suggests the equilibrium rise from the first half doubling is not even one quarter of the less than equilibrium rise from the second half doubling. To me this is illogical.

3. IPCC claim an increase in retained energy of around 3.7 watts/sqM for each doubling of CO2 (1.66 watts/sqM for the current rise page 4). They admit this is much too small to result in a 3+ degree temperature rise. The large temperature rise is based on claims of very large net positive feedback in the climate system.

Yet, every natural stable system I can think of exhibits net negative feedback. Indeed the terms stability and negative feedback are synonymous since negative feedback is what causes stability. By contrast, positive feedback causes instability (such as tipping points where a large change in output occurs for a small change in input). Stability does not mean zero change, it means the response to changes in input are small enough and sufficiently controlled so as to not cause system destruction or runaway. If you want to argue that the climate system is not stable then I would why it has remained conducive to continued life on this planet for billions of years. This is despite all the change in CO2 levels, volcanic eruptions, changes in solar output and orbital changes over the millennia. To me, that is a very good definition of climate stability.

4. The AGW modellers claim cloud feedback is positive. AGW advocates seem to divide clouds into two categories, low clouds and high clouds. Every report I have read acknowledges that low clouds cause cooling. With regard to high clouds there is some dispute but the AGW modellers claim they cause warming. Further they claim a warming planet results in a bias away from low clouds and towards high clouds thus exacerbating warming, hence contributing to positive feedback.

At the same time they claim constant relative humidity in their models. This means that as the temperature rises, more water must be evaporating. Now unless we want to predict that the amount of water in the atmosphere is going to continuously rise until the oceans are suspended over our heads, more evaporation must imply more precipitation ie: more rain. However, rain only comes from low clouds not high clouds, so more rain means more low cloud mass not less low cloud mass. This contradicts the previous position. If the claim is that both increase, then that means significantly more cloud mass in total. Clouds are the biggest contributor to Earth’s albedo (the fraction of incoming solar energy reflected back out to space). Rising total cloudiness means increasing albedo and the albedo is very strongly cooling. The albedo already causes 100 watts/sqM to be reflected away from Earth. To cancel out the entire impact claimed by IPCC for doubling CO2 only requires an increase in cloudiness from 60% to 62.4%.

An increase in temperature, leading to more evaporation, in turn leading to more cloudiness which reduces the solar input to Earth thus reducing temperatures is a description of negative feedback not positive feedback.

5. The claimed “proof” of positive feedback is a model prediction of a hot spot in the tropics at mid troposphere levels. However all the experimental evidence from many, many measurements has failed to find any evidence of such a hot spot. In science, a clear prediction that is falsified experimentally means the underlying hypothesis on which the prediction is based is wrong.

6. The reports documenting man’s CO2 emission use some scarily large numbers but these have to be viewed in the light of the overall system size. For example, a million dollars is an extremely large amount of money for a private individual but it is almost petty cash for a government. If we want to put the numbers into perspective we need to relate them to the size of the system. Why not express CO2 quantities in terms of how many PPM 1 year’s emissions will raise or lower the atmospheric CO2 level (if all of it stayed in the atmosphere). We could call that PPM equivalents.

In those terms, human emissions amount to about 2.7 PPM equivalents. Now NASA have published a diagram showing annual CO2 transfers for the planet. This shows terrestrial plants absorbing about 61 PPM equivalents. We know that both rising CO2 and rising temperature favour faster plant growth. That’s why horticulturalists artificially raise CO2 levels in glass houses to about 1000 PPM. It is also why plants grow faster in the tropics than in cooler locations on earth. More to the point, a recent study showed average plant growth has accelerated by about 6% over the last 30 years. A 6% increase in plant growth means a 6% increase in absorbed CO2, from 61PPM equivalents to 64.7 PPM equivalents. This means that human emissions have increased by 2.7 PPM equivalents but plants have increased their absorption by an extra 3.7 PPM equivalents over the same period. The increased plant growth is consuming more than 100% of human emissions. Is there another (natural) factor contributing to CO2 increases?

This response, more CO2 leading to faster plant growth which in turn consumes more CO2 is another example of the widespread bias towards negative feedback I alluded to earlier. Apart from which, is increased plant growth and thus agricultural productivity bad? I would have thought it was highly desirable.

7. The AGW hypothesis is based on temperature rises between about 1975 and 1998 or about 25 years worth of data. This is claimed to be definitive yet the last 10 years worth of data shows falling global temperatures. This is claimed to be a short term aberration and of no consequence. I do not see how 25 years can be considered definitive beyond dispute while 10 years of data is a short term aberration, too short to be significant. I would have thought at least a 10:1 ratio would be necessary to make such a claim.

8. If I adopt this 10:1 ratio by looking at the last 100 years worth of data I find 1910-1940 temperatures rising while CO2 was not. 1940 to 1975 temperatures falling while CO2 rising, 1975 to 1998 temperatures rising while CO2 rising and 1998 to 2009 temperatures falling while CO2 rising. Three quarters of the period shows no correlation or negative correlation with CO2 and only one quarter shows positive correlation. I do not understand how one can claim a hypothesis proven when ¾ of the data set disagrees with it. To me it is the clearest proof that the hypothesis is wrong.

9. For the last 10 years the global temperature data shows either no atmospheric temperature rise or indeed a falling global temperature. Recently this has been claimed to be due to a combination of a quiet sun and changes in ocean circulation superimposed on the underlying warming trend. The further claim is that when these effects reverse, warming will start again with a vengeance.

If these natural processes can cancel out the impact of AGW then they are as powerful as AGW. If they can overwhelm the impact of AGW to cause cooling they are more powerful, yet IPCC and other AGW proponents have claimed in previous assessment reports that solar influences are only a minor contributor compared to CO2.

The sun was unusually active during the latter half of the 20th century in contrast to its current inactivity and the ocean circulation was the opposite of what is now happening. Thus the natural effects claimed to be causing cooling now would have been causing warming in the late 20th century. If these natural effects are as large as the AGW impact then they would have caused half the observed 20th century warming. If the natural effects now outweigh the AGW impact to cause cooling then they would have been responsible for more than half the observed 20th century warming.

This is not only in contradiction of the earlier IPCC claims, it also means that the actual impact of CO2 increases since 1900 is much less than the claimed 0.5C. At most 0.25C and possibly much less even than that.

If in fact the temperature returns to the long term average over the next few years (as seems to be increasingly likely), it suggests that these natural processes were responsible for essentially all the observed temperature changes over the 20th century with negligible impact from CO2 changes.

10. I have looked at the raw temperature record for the USA (USHCN data) and the Bureau of Meteorology data for Victoria, Australia. Both show fluctuations of temperature with time but zero underlying trend for the last century. By contrast, the official IPCC endorsed data shows a strong underlying upwards trend. When I investigate why the difference, I find that the raw data has been adjusted for several supposed factors and every one of these adjustments created a warming trend. This implies that the claimed warming trend is due to the adjustments, not the raw data. In any less controversial scientific issue, such a result would be viewed with the greatest possible scepticism and would be extremely unlikely to be accepted.

When I examine the raw temperature data record for cities compared with nearby suburban or rural areas, I find an extremely high signature of urban heat island effect. Yet the people doing the temperature adjustments claim that urban heat island effects are negligible and do not require correction. This is despite the fact that a significant proportion of the measurement stations are in cities.

Such a clear factor not corrected for while other more subtle claimed factors are corrected casts further doubt on the correction protocol. If there is an upwards bias in the corrections, it means the claimed warming trend is exaggerated and may in fact not exist at all.

11. The mainstream media keep reporting that the current situation is increasingly dire and is much worse than even the previous pessimistic projections. When I examine this statement I find that previous projections predicted rapid atmospheric warming during the last 10 years whereas in fact we have had cooling. They predicted rapid increase in rate of rise of sea level when in fact the rate of sea level rise has recently declined. They predicted a very rapid increase in Arctic summer sea ice loss whereas in fact, for the last 2 years, it has been increasing. They predicted a rapid rise in hurricane incidence and severity when in fact there has been a decline. To me the media’s many claims are not supportable. I also consider it to be beyond simple error. At best it is unpardonable gross carelessness in checking the data they are reporting and at worst it is deliberate bias in reporting.

12. More recently, in response to the data showing no warming for the last 10 years, I have seen new claims that global land temperatures are now deemed irrelevant. The newly discovered measure of importance is the rise in ocean temperature, since it is now claimed that this is by far the largest planetary heat sink. If that claim is true, it makes all the previous data claiming to show strong global warming over the period 1975 to 1998 also irrelevant. To suggest that from 1975 to 1998, the energy went into warming the land and air and then abruptly in 1998 it stopped doing that and the heat instead went into heating the oceans is, to me, completely absurd. Nature simply does not work that way. It is like claiming you put the kettle on, for the first minute the energy goes into heating the water and then abruptly it stops heating the water and starts heating the room instead.

13. Looking further at the claim of warming ocean temperatures. Late last century it was realised that the method of measuring ocean temperatures was extremely inaccurate and unreliable. To overcome that, a sophisticated, global system of buoys was designed and implemented at very considerable cost and effort. These buoys repeatedly dive down to measure temperatures and then resurface to report back findings This network is called the Argo network and it became operational in 2003. Since becoming operational, it has shown ocean cooling. Yet the scientists who claim ongoing ocean warming exclude the Argo data and the satellite data instead relying entirely on the earlier poor reliability methods.

The same scientific community which claimed a method was inaccurate and unreliable, designed and implemented a new high accuracy measurement system, are now rejecting the new high accuracy data in favour of the older data they themselves viewed as unreliable. How can that be justified? Why is the data from the older less reliable method correct, while results from the new, high accuracy methodology are wrong? What does that say about the scientists who designed the Argo system but apparently don’t trust its output? To me it suggests selecting data to prove a favoured hypothesis, commonly called cherry picking.

Some sites are talking about “correcting” the Argo data. Why should a carefully thought out, brand new, high accuracy system already require adjustment to its outputs? Was a mistake made in the design? Why are the proposed adjustments again in the direction of exacerbating the claimed warming? When the raw data contradicts the hypothesis yet the “adjustments and corrections” all reverse that result so as to support the championed hypothesis, it’s time to start worrying.

14. What mankind is doing by consuming fossil fuels is recycling CO2 that used to be in the atmosphere but got trapped in the distant past. Is there a “correct” level of CO2? What I have read suggests that the Earth was a more verdant place before the CO2 got locked up in fossil fuels. Would the Earth be more or less pleasant a place if the carbon currently locked up in fossil fuels were again available to the biosphere. Not just for humans but for all living things, plants and animals. Surely we should consider that before we pick some arbitrary recent point in time and declare that the CO2 level at that time is the ideal to be maintained at all costs.

FROM a slightly different but related perspective, I see the AGW story continuously changing. When one measure no longer trends the wanted way, a change is made to a new measure (change from surface to ocean temperatures and ocean acidity). In one report, an effect is claimed to be negligible when that suits the hypothesis yet the same measure is later used as a reason to explain away embarrassing trends (Solar influence and ocean currents). All the observed effects are very moderate (less than 0.5C) if present at all yet hysteria is generated on the basis of hypothesised extreme future outcomes (up to 6C rise and 10 meter sea level rises). Outcomes far enough in the future so as to be un-testable yet close enough to impact people being born today. Claims based on abstract models that fail even short term validation tests. As a practicing scientist, I have seen this scenario more than once before, changing benchmarks and indicative parameters, rewriting predictions and predicted causes after the event, excusing erroneous predictions. These are clear signs of propping up a false hypothesis.

There does seem to be clear evidence that temperature changed several times over the 20th century both up and down. There is far less evidence for any underlying upwards trend due to CO2 and many reasons to question the data analysis that tries to demonstrate such a trend.

One of the arguments I often hear is “well even if AGW is not absolutely proven we should take action just in case its correct” – the precautionary principle. I see two reasons to disagree with that.

Firstly, if rising CO2 should bring about some warming it is by no means certain that this would be catastrophically bad or for that matter whether it would be bad at all. It seems quite likely to me that the cure would be worse than the disease.

Secondly, and to me much more importantly, there is another issue we need to consider and that is the law of unintended consequences. Briefly this states that whenever you take action there will always be consequences you did not consider in advance and did not intend. Since there are many more ways to be wrong than to be right there is a better than 50:50 chance that these consequences will be bad. If the original action is based on a false premise it greatly increases the risk of bad unintended consequences. The precautionary principle is based on the belief that there is no down side to taking action. The law of unintended consequences tells us that there is always a down side and the cost versus benefit always needs to be carefully evaluated before acting.

We are already seeing some very bad unintended consequences of the action taken so far over global warming. The government driven initiative to use less fossil fuel by diluting it with ethanol is causing massive forest clearing the Amazon basin (to grow the ethanol feedstock) and is very significantly raising food prices causing even worse starvation in 3rd world countries. Terrible as it is, this has not greatly impacted on western society but the next phase most certainly will.

There is another very serious unintended consequence that I would like to raise here; one that concerns me very deeply. When I listen to the public AGW debate I hear very high profile politicians and prominent public figures calling for people who openly disagree with AGW to be put on trial for treason. I hear many cases of people losing their jobs because of voicing sceptical opinions. I hear prominent global warming advocates refusing to enter into debates or trying to avoid debates by claiming the science is settled, and by claiming we do not have time, we have only weeks to act. I hear AGW advocates resorting to personal attacks against people who disagree rather than addressing the technical issues they raise.

I hear AGW proponents claiming to be the under funded underdogs, fighting to protect the planet against greedy capitalists, yet the reality is their funding is at least 1000 times greater than the sceptics funding. I see many reports of scientists refusing to release their workings, thus preventing review of their methodology, despite the fact that their work was funded by public money.

I see how the established media abandons balance in reporting by strongly favouring proponents of AGW, ignoring or denigrating sceptics and forcing most onto blog sites like this one. I hear some environmental groups and activists publicly claim that its OK and even necessary to exaggerate the threat so as to get the public to engage. I see the courts condoning acts of vandalism and even violence against essential public infrastructure. I see high profile public figures supporting such acts and claiming them to be reasonable and justified.

In short I see our society abandoning some of our most vital democratic freedoms over this hysteria: Free speech, impartial enforcement of the law, balance in reporting, freedom of information. These are freedoms our forebears gave their lives to bequeath to us, they are our most valuable inheritance and we seem to be throwing them away over an unproven hysterical hypothesis.

More recently I have read articles from England advocating individual ration cards for petrol, heating oil, gas, electricity. Is water and food next? War time austerity as an ongoing future way of life? A return to the agrarian poverty of the middle ages? I note the new film “Not evil just wrong” has had to be distributed via the internet rather than traditional media. One step from distribution through an underground network? Will that apply to all future sceptical writing? What about other writing contrary to the popular opinion of the day?

These are the issues that differentiate between a free democracy and a totalitarian regime and the further one goes down this path the harder it is to pull back. History has shown us that the disease is far easier to acquire than to get rid of.

*******************

Notes and Links

Michael Hammer graduated with a Bachelor of Engineering Science and Master of Engineering Science from Melbourne University. Since 1976 he has been working in the field of spectroscopy with the last 25 years devoted to full time research for a large multinational spectroscopy company.

This 2007 documentary blows the whistle on what may be the biggest swindle in modern history. Proponents of man-made global warming (led by Al Gore) warn that climate change is the greatest threat ever to mankind, and if we do not change our ways and reduce CO2 emissions, polar ice caps will melt, coastal areas will flood and hurricanes like Katrina will become common.

With nearly Gestapo like tactics, we are commanded not to question the edicts of the IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. There is absolutely no room for doubt because there is a “scientific consensus.” Anyone who questions the data or conclusion is an enemy of the state and humanity.

This film interviews some of the world’s leading scientists, climatologists and former environmentalists, who challenge and contradict these claims.

The United Nations Climate change conference has opened in the Danish capital Copenhagen. RT’s Laura Emmet has talked to one man who’ll be there – who’s also one of the most outspoken critics of global warming theory.